Reporter Point-Counterpoint

Two opinions on the state Court race today. First, Senator Glenn Grothman weighs in:–The election for Supreme Court on Tuesday is one of the most important in years.–Governors serve for four years, state legislators for two or four, but Supreme Court justices serve for 10 years. As courts become more activist, they can do more harm to our business climate than government bureaucrats. They can order government to spend more money and drive up taxes.–Little old Wisconsin has attracted national interest in the Wall Street Journal for having one of the worst Supreme Courts in the nation.–I’ve known Judge Annette Ziegler for 10 years and am confident she will stand up for justice against the activist wing of the court. Her opponent is being supported by the same Madison trial attorneys who have created the current mess.–Please join me in voting for Annette Ziegler.–Why would Clifford continue the activist mess? Maybe it has something to do with this story…or this one…–And in this corner, we have Ted & Hedy Eischeid:–We have watched the current State Supreme Court race between Linda Clifford and Annette Ziegler with some interest.–Such non-partisan races can be tough ones for voters trying to make the best choice. In addition, several interest groups are running ads for both candidates that simply make the choice more confusing.–However, there is one standard that decides who we will vote for and that is integrity. Judicial candidates can’t speak about how they will vote on future cases, but we as voters can look at their records and decide which of the candidates will be a fair judge who will decide cases with intelligence and integrity.–Given this perspective, we will be voting for Linda Clifford. Mrs. Clifford has an outstanding legal record, one of integrity and intelligence. Unfortunately, her opponent, Annette Ziegler, has clearly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct multiple times.–If Judge Ziegler can’t follow a simple ethical code expected of all judges, how can she fairly hear cases brought before the highest court in the state? We don’t care how much experience she has as a judge — flawed ethical behavior as a judge equals a flawed judge. Judge Ziegler’s version of integrity simply doesn’t pass the smell test.–Based on this critical issue of integrity, we will be voting for Linda Clifford on April 3. For the State Supreme Court, integrity does matter. Vote for a breath of fresh air on Tuesday.–OK, class, what’s missing in this letter? Anyone? If your guess was “What ethical violations?” you’re correct!–For more information on the scandals of the race, check out this article from Fact Check, which says that while “The investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission may clear that up, albeit after the election,” there’s currently “no evidence that the Zieglers got any financial benefit from her rulings.”

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

One thought on “Reporter Point-Counterpoint”

Regarding your comment… “…from Fact Check, which says that while “The investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission may clear that up, albeit after the election,” there’s currently “no evidence that the Zieglers got any financial benefit from her rulings.”Whether her family received benefit or not, Judge Ziegler clearly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct. Your apologetics for her could be construed to absurdities like “if my lying don’t hurt anyone then it is okay…” What would Jesus do???To learn more about the case against Judge Ziegler as determined by her peers (yes, she is guilty of ethical violations, and that stinks!) http://blogs.wispolitics.com/legal/labels/Annette_Ziegler.html. Ultimately the State Supreme Court will determine her sanction. However, whatever their decision is it will not allay her ethical taint and my distrust about her judgement.

The views expressed on Conservative Standards are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other organizations or publications where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with such groups.